|
Legislation Details
|
File #:
|
HIST-13740
Version:
1
|
Subject:
|
|
|
Type:
|
Historical
|
Status:
|
Action Item
|
|
On agenda:
|
4/5/2010
|
Final action:
|
4/5/2010
|
|
Title:
|
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a City Council Policy Related to Public Notification and Community Involvement in the Development Process and Rescinding Resolution No. 2007-R077.
|
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
1
Meeting Date: 04/05/2010 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a City Council
Policy Related to Public Notification and Community Involvement in the
Development Process and Rescinding Resolution No. 2007-R077
Contact Person/Dept.: Martin R. Cole,
Assistant City Manager
Phone Number: 310-253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Dates:
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (04/05/2010)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (04/05/10)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (04/01/10)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Mark Scott (by M. Noller) (04/01/10)
City Manager Approval:
Mark Scott (04/01/10)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a City Council
Policy related to public notification and community involvement in the development
process and rescinding Resolution No. 2007-R077.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council places great importance on providing the community with
notification of various items under consideration by the City Council and other local
governmental entities. Additionally, the City Council has placed particular emphasis
on providing the community with a number of opportunities to participate in the
discussion of proposed developments.
The City Council has discussed this topic on a number of occasions. On December
3, 2007, the City Council adopted City Council Policy 2007-002 related to public
notification. After extensive notice was given, the City Council discussed this subject
again on March 30, 2009. Most recently, the City Council discussed this subject on
January 11, 2010 at which time the City Council directed the City Manager to
prepare an amended City Council Policy for the City Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2
The City Manager prepared the attached proposed policy for consideration by the
City Council. It outlines the various ways the City of Culver City both complies with
legal minimums for notice. Additionally, it provides guidelines for the extensive
courtesy notice provided above and beyond those legal minimums. With respect to
development proposals, the amended policy outlines the additional pre-submittal
and post-submittal opportunities for the community to provide input on these
subjects.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The attached policy is the culmination of many City Council discussions where tens
of hours of public testimony were considered and hundreds of hours of staff time
were allocated to preparing both the policy and the underlying notice processes.
The courtesy notice provided by the City along with the additional meetings for
development proposals have a cost associated with them. Those costs can, at
times, be significant.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from December 3, 2007
2. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from March 30, 2009
3. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from January 11, 2010
4. Proposed Resolution (with Proposed Amended Policy)
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt the Resolution approving a City Council Policy related to public notification
and community involvement in the development process and rescinding
Resolution 2007-R077.
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amended Policy
Related to Public Notification and Community Involvement in the
Development Process.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from 1 -9
December 3, 2007
2. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from 10-27
March 30, 2009
3. Staff Report, Attachments, and Minutes from 28-42
January 11, 2010
4. Proposed Resolution (with proposed Amended 43 -47
Policy)Contact Person/Dept.: Martin R. Cole,
Assistant City Manager.
Fiscal impact: Yes [X] N
Master Notification List (11128/2007).
t]
• Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (11/26/2007)
Fiscal Impact Review:
IVIarlee Chang (11/28/07)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. IlKer) (11/28/07)
: City Manager Approval:
Jerry a. ::FUlwoOcl (1:1/28M7)
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date 12/03/07
tern Number: A-7
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a City
Council Policy on Public Notification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss a proposed City Council Policy on public
notification and adopt a resolution establishing the proposed Policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council discussed this topic on July 10, 2006. At that time and after very
brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to return at a later date with a
proposed updated policy related to Public Notification. Therefore, this item is
presented to the City Council this evening for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
Culver City has had a tradition of encouraging public participation in the
governmental process. As part of that tradition, the City has provided public
notification in excess of the levels required by law. In the following sections, the
various levels of public notification will be discussed.
Legally Required Notice
Under applicable federal and state law and as provided for in the City Charter and
Culver City Municipal Code, the City provides notification to a subset of the Culver
City community of certain actions being considered by the City Council, the City's
Commissions (especially the Planning Commission), and certain administrative
actions taken by City Staff.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Section 610 of the City Charter states the following:
The City Council shall comply with the applicable provisions of State law
regarding the giving of notice for regular and special meetings. The City
Council shall consider whether it should establish additional procedures to
provide efficient, timely and cost-effective notice in a manner consistent
with currently available technology.
Consideration of this item and the associated Policy meets the requirements of this
Section of the Charter.
Notification Process under Current Practice
In addition to legally required notice, current City practice provides for an "enhanced"
public notification process. This involves the preparation and mailing of post cards,
publishing of courtesy notices in the local newspapers, and researching past
minutes to find persons and organizations interested in various topics. Also, in
instances where the minimum legal requirement is to provide notice to property
owners, the City also provides notice to residents as well.
The current process can be staff time intensive (because of the need for manual
research). Further, while staff strives to include every interested person in a
notification effort, a manual system may result in some interested persons being
inadvertently missed.
Points for Consideration
In distributing items for public notification purposes, the City should attempt to
balance the cost of notification with the efficacy of the notification effort. Additionally,
the City should also consider the subjects of resource conservation and
sustainability.
In an attempt to reach the broadest number of persons, the City currently sends
postcards to property owners as well as residents. The Information Technology
Department has attempted to electronically "sift" the lists so that if the property
owner is the resident, then only one notification postcard is generated. However,
sometimes the information utilized for this process may be several months old and
duplication may occur. From time to time, the City Council has heard from residents
who receive multiple notifications for the same item.
Even with this process, a Citywide mailing costs approximately $0.50 per post card.
With approximately 22,000 postal addresses in the City, a City-wide mailing costs aCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
minimum of $11,000. With respect to newspaper notification, a quarter-page legal
advertisement costs approximately $150 per insertion.
As directed by the City Council, staff has prepared the attached draft policy for the
City Council's consideration. In drafting the proposed policy, staff is recommending
the following:
• Continued compliance with the minimum notification requirements established
in applicable law;
• Continued use of the "extended radius to end of block" methodology currently
in use;
• Reduction of the use of postcard notifications in favor of E-mail notification.
•
Utilize the GIS System as the basis of creating the address lists for mail
notifications with radii being extended to the end of blocks.
• Increased use of E-Mail notifications
• Increased use of a revised Speaker's Card to allow persons to sign-up for the
City's e-mail notification list
• Routine placement of public notices on the City's Website
•
Provide for the establishment of a mail notification list and allow persons to
self-select areas of interest
• Department Heads may provide for extended notification based upon specific
circumstances
Generally, the City is continually moving toward more efficient processes. For
example, the City Council has approved online application and payment for
recreation class registrations and certain permits. And, on November 14, 2007, the
City Council authorized the purchase of software to allow Business License
Certificates to be renewed online. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Public
Notification Policy that also takes advantage of the efficiencies of electronic
processing. This process has significant benefits by decreasing use of resources
and reducing the number of missed notification requests.
Publicizing the New Notification Process
To help the Community become more aware of the public notification processes
available, staff will advertise the availability of the e-mail and postal notification lists
on various existing City "publications" including on the City's website, city
documents, with internal flyers and through other similar methods.
PROCESSES USED BY WESTSIDE COG CITIESCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
In preparing this report, staff contacted the cities of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and
West Hollywood. The following table includes the results of this brief survey:
City Process Used
Beverly Hills In addition to legal minimums, the City posts its
notices on their website. Items of a non-
routine nature may be noticed through
announcement at a City Council meeting.
Santa Monica Provides the legalyrequired notice.
West Hollywood In addition to legal minimums, the City posts
notices on City bulletin boards at City Hall and
all City Parks. Notices are also posted at the
Sheriffs Station and on their Cable TV
Channel.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
will resulted in the reduction in the use of mail
In addition to the cost reductions for
currently utilized in the preparation and mailing
for other City's priorities. The exact of potential
at this time; however, it is estimated to be in the
Overall, it will have a positive fiscal impact
the commitment to the City's Sustainable
Council Policy)
Card.
Notification; and
the Public Notification Policy.
It is anticipated that the new policy
and the increase in the use of E-Mail.
supplies and mailing, the staff time
of post cards would be available
cost reduction is difficult to project
tens of thousands of dollars annually.
to the City's and it will also fulfill
Community Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution (including
2. Proposed Revised Speaker's
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Discuss the topic of Public
2. Adopt the resolution establishingCity Council Adopted Policy 2007-02
Subject Matter: Public Notification
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide general guidelines for staff to use when
preparing public notifications of various actions to be considered by the City
Council, the City's Commissions/Boards/Committees, and staff, where
applicable.
This Policy shall be consistent with the City Charter and other applicable laws.
CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS
Section 610 of the City Charter states:
The City Council shall comply with the applicable provisions of State
law regarding the giving of notice for regular and special meetings.
The City Council shall consider whether it should establish additional
procedures to provide efficient, timely and cost-effective notice in a
manner consistent with currently available technology.
This Policy is established in accordance with this City Charter provision.
LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE
By adopting this Policy, the City Council restates the minimum requirements
embodied in Federal, State, and Local laws. In accordance with those applicable
laws, staff shall, at a minimum, provide notice as legally required. In complying
with legally required notice, the notification list shall be expanded to include
property owners and residents/occupants 'until the end of the block.
USE OF CITYWIDE NOTIFICATION
From time to time, City-wide notification may be appropriate or desirable.
Whenever possible and appropriate, City-wide notification shall be coordinated
with the quarterly publication of Culver City Living. Additionally, public notices
shall be routinely placed on the City's website. To conserve server storage
space, public notices shall be removed from the website after the meeting or
event notices has occurred.
Due to the cost involved, an individual, full City-wide notification shall only be
conducted with the approval of the City Manager or at the direction of the City
Council.CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
The City Council Speaker Card shall provide information to interested parties on
how to sign-up for either the E-Mail or Postal Mail Interest Lists. A sample of the
City Council Speaker Card is attached. The City Council Speaker Card may be
amended from time to time to further the goals of this Policy.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL E-MAIL AND POSTAL MAIL INTEREST
LISTS
Culver City has had a tradition of encouraging public participation in the
governmental process. As part of that tradition, the City has provided public
notification in excess of the levels required by law. The City has also adopted a
number of policies and procedures which make Culver City a leader in
sustainability and environmental awareness.
To provide for additional efficiencies, staff shall establish the following two
categories of interest lists: (1) An E-mail Interest List, and (2) a Postal Mail
Interest List.
E-Mail Interest List
E-Mail provides an efficient, timely, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive
method of providing public notification. Through the use of e-mail, the City can
notify a large number of persons simultaneously and almost instantly. Duplicate
e-mails can be easily deleted, minimizing wasted resources.
Whenever practicable, the City shall encourage interested parties to sign-up for
e-mail notification through a self-service and self-selecting process.
Postal Mail Interest Lists
To accommodate those persons who may not have easy access to a computer
and/or the Internet, the City shall establish and maintain a postal mail interest list.
Various categories of interest may be created in order to accommodate various
topics. Such topics shall be established by staff based upon the number of
individuals requesting notification on a topic.
Signing Up for the E-Mail and Postal Mail Interest Lists
To encourage and facilitate the use of both Interest Lists, Staff shall provide a
number of ways in which interested persons can sign-up for both. These
methods may include (but not be limited to):
• Electronic sign-up via the City's website
• Manual sign-up via the City Council Speaker Card
• Manual sign-up via written or telephonic requestIt is the responsibility of residents to keep their address current with the city by
notifying the city if they move or change their e-mail address.
ADDITIONAL NOTICE
The City Manager and the City's Department Heads may determine that notice
above the minimum requirements of this Policy is in the public interest. In that
case, additional notice may be provided with the approval of the Department
Head and/or the City Manager.ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE Page 9 ot 12
December 3, 2007
Item A-6
(continued)
Further discussion ensued regarding the prohibitive cost of using a
contract ambulance company as a standby; the fact that Culver City EMS
were unavailable for an average of eight calls per month; questions as
to why the matter was not planned for in the current budget; traffic's
impact on response time; whether non-profits would be assessed the
proposed tax; a suggestion that the item be presented at the next
budget cycle; the need to hire a consultant to complete a study in
order to put the item on the ballot, and the shelf life of the study.
Following discussion, the following motion was made:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROSE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GROSS AND
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO RETAIN A
CONSULTANT TO COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.
o0o
Item A-7
Discussion and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a City Council
Policy on Public Notification.
The following member of the audience addressed the City Council:
Tom Camarella
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager gave the staff report.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
electronic notification possibilities; electronic search capabilities;
notification procedures of area cities; an explanation of what is
currently in place; who would be in charge of the public notification
database; and applicable notification laws.
rnhtml:http://www.culvercity.org/pdfs_minutes/129200813322PMm071203.mht 3/29/2010ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE Page 1U of 1'2
December 3, 2007
Item A-7
(continued)
Following discussion, the following motion was made:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MALSIN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GROSS AND
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
R077 ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY, WITH THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENT: INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
RESIDENTS TO KEEP THEIR ADDRESS CURRENT WITH THE CITY BY NOTIFYING THE
CITY IF THEY MOVE OR CHANGE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
o0o
Public Comment for Items Not on the Agenda (Continued).
Mayor Corlin invited public participation.
There was no response.
o0o
Receipt of Correspondence
No action was taken on this item.
o0o
-Items from Staff
Items Presented by Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager:
• The City Council previously assigned the issue of notification
with respect to permits to a subcommittee; that the item will be
coming back before the City Council.
o0o
mhtml:http://wwvv.culvercity.org/pdfs_minutes/129200813322PMm071203.mht 3/29/2010AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Public Notification and Community involvement in
the Development Processes.
Contact Person/Dept
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager;
Sol Blumenfeld, CD Director;
Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager
Phone Number:
(310) 253-6007
(310) 253-5702
(310) 253-5710
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 03/30/09 Item Number: A-2
Fiscal Impact Yes
[X]
General Fund: Y
[X]
Public Hearing: Action Item: [Xi Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: This Town Hall meeting has . been announced at City Council
Meetings, quarter-page advertisements have been placed in the Culver City. Observer
and the Culver City News on March 12, 19, and 26; information signs were placed in 17
areas in Culver City Parks; the Official Notice of the Meeting was placed on City service
counters and on the City's vvebsite; Three E-Mail notifications Utilizing the Master E-
Mail Notification List were sent between March 2 and March 26, 2009; Master E-Mail
Notification List (03/25/09); Mailed notice to all Culver City Homeowner Groups, Public
Speakers at Planning Commission and City Council Meetings regarding development
projects over the past year (03/1,9/09)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (03/25/09)
So[ Blumenfeld (03/25/09)
Chief Financial Officer Review:
Jeff Muir (03/25/09)
E'CitYi:AttOrOPY4Pr.:OV:01;l:'
:Carof. Schwab (by:1H.::::Baker)(03/25/09)::::
City Manager
Jerry B. F ON/Ooci :(03/25/09)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive this report on the City's public notification
and community involvement in the development processes and direct staff as
deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has, on a number of occasions, expressed its strong interest in
ensuring the City's public notification process provides accurate information to
interested persons on a wide variety of City subjects. Also, at its January 26, 2009
meeting, the City Council received a staff report on City processes for obtaining
public input on discretionary development projects and the requirements of other
cities related to public notification and public outreach. The Council directed staff
further research the matter to develop possible strategies that may be applied to the
City. Both matters were scheduled for discussion at this evening's meeting in order
to provide additional input from both the City Council and the community on these
two important topics.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Staff will be presenting this report with the aid of a PowerPoint slideshow.
To facilitate the discussion of these two related topics, staff is presenting one staff
report divided into two major themes: (I) General Public Notification and (II) Public
Notification and Involvement in the Development Process.
DISCUSSION:
I. GENERAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The City of Culver City has been an advocate of involving the community in the
City's decision making process. In fact, surveys of our surrounding cities show that
Culver City provides significantly more notification than the minimum legal
requirements and the practices in place in other area cities. While the City's public
notification process has not been without some challenges, the City exceeds the
minimum requirements of State and other applicable law in reaching out to the
community and providing notice of items to be discussed by the City Council, the
Redevelopment Agency, other City Commissions, Boards, and Committees, and
staff.
On December 3, 2007, the City Council unanimously adopted the following motion: _
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MALSIN, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GROSS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-R077
ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY, WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESIDENTS TO KEEP THEIR ADDRESS
CURRENT WITH THE CITY BY NOTIFYING THE CITY IF THEY MOVE
OR CHANGE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
A copy of the staff report from that meeting and City Council Policy 2007-002 is
attached for the Council's ease of reference.
Since the adoption of City Council Policy 2007-002, the City Clerk's Office has been
adding all e-mail addresses received from Speaker Cards to the City's Master E-Mail
Notification list. As a result, the list has grown from some 700 addresses to
approximately 920 addresses today. Even though the public notification process
has improved with the adoption of City Council Policy 2007-002, the City Council has
continued to express some concern over the reliability of the City's Public
Notification Process.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Creation of a Staff Working Group on the Public Notification Process:
To address the City Council's concerns, the City Manager directed the Assistant City
Manager/City Clerk to form a staff working group on public notification. This working
group contains at least one representative from each City department. The working
group discussed the current processes used by departments for public notification,
and suggestions made by City Council Members, the Community and staff were
reviewed. As a result of this effort, the working group has proposed solutions to the
concerns voiced by both the City Council and the general public related to public
notification. These recommendations are presented below:
A. Format of Public Notification Items
The format for public notification items could range significantly from Department to
Department and sometimes within Divisions of the same Department. Some
examples of common public notification items include:
(1) The City Standard Postcard
(2) A larger postcard for unusual items
(3) Glossy Tr-Fold Postcard for rare items
(4) Legally Required Letter Notification
(4) Quarter Sized Newspaper Ad
(5) Half Sized Newspaper Ad
(6) Full Page Ad
(7) Culver City Living
(8) Focused E-Mail Notification
(9) Master E- Mail Notification
(10) Posting at City Hall
(11) Posting at All City Buildings
(12) Posting at City Parks
The City chooses from a "menu" of individual public notification items and, from time
to time, may order a "combination plate" that involves a number of the above items.
While this provides the City with a number of options, it was found that the
application of these items varied amongst City Departments. Therefore, one
component of the proposed enhancements to the Public Notification Process is to
provide a City-wide standard for public notification that meets the following criteria:
(1) A consistent baseline of notification;
(2) Similar topics, regardless of Department of origin, shall be noticed
in a similar fashion; and,City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
(3) The Public Notification Process needs to be consistent, reliable,
efficient, and identifiable.
B. Consistency
At a recent Council meeting, Councilmenriber O'Leary mentioned a concern that the
current process may not provide consistently reliable results. To address this
concern, staff is proposing both a standard level of public notification based upon a
distribution list (either electronic or physical) that will produce consistent results.
C. Reliability
A reliable system of public notification will require participation by both staff and the
community. Staffs role is to provide reliable notification to those members of the
community that either request it or are legally required to receive it. The
community's role is to either provide to the City their contact information or to access
the general information provided by the City either in person (at the City Clerk's
Office) or electronically (via the City's website). Additionally, a reliable system
balances the desire of individual community members to be provided with notice and
the ability of staff to reliably manage the notification system. To address these
items, staff proposes to provide a number of topics to which individuals can
subscribe (either via e-mail or postal mail). To maintain the reliability of the system,
it is proposed the number of individual topics be no more than 20.
D. Efficiency
The City Council has been contacted by members of the community who have both
(1) not received a desired notice, or (2) received multiple notices on the same topic.
To address these concerns in a fiscally prudent way, staff proposes that rather than
employ a more costly (and potentially less effective) "blanket" noticing system, that
the focus be on increasing subscription to the City's e-mail and postal mail
notification systems.
For the Council's information, following are the costs associated with different kinds
of public notification:
(1) The City Standard Postcard $10,000
(2) A larger postcard for unusual items $4,000
(3) Glossy Tr-Fold Postcard for rare items $6,000
(4) Quarter Sized Newspaper Ad $230
(5) Half Sized Newspaper Ad $380
(6) Full Page Ad $1,050
(7) Focused E-Mail Notification $0City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
(8) Master E- Mail Notification $0
(9) Posting at City Hall $50
(10) Posting at All City Buildings $100
(11) Posting at City Parks $500
In lieu of more frequent "Citywide" notifications (which cost in excess of $10,000 per
notification), staff proposes to provide a quarterly notification sign up effort. This
would involve publishing a full page ad in the local papers and to include similar
information in every edition of Culver City Living. The ads would be augmented by a
link on the City's website and the use of flyers posted at service counters throughout
City buildings. The sign-up effort would provide the community with information on
how to sign up for the City's notification systems. Further, a suggestion has been
made to allow an annual renewal of the sign-up notification. Staff recommends this.
Based upon the very low cost, rapidity, and environmentally friendly nature (no
paper is used, nor does the delivery of e-mail involve to consumption of fossil fuels)
associated with e-mail, staff continues to recommend that e-mail be the City's
preferred method of courtesy public notification. For those who do not have easy
access to e-mail, staff continues to recommend the maintenance of a postal address
notification list. However, the City Council may wish to establish a modest fee to
cover postage and other related costs for this service.
Environmental sensitivity is also part of being efficient. As included in City Council
Policy 2007-002, the City encourages interested parties to sign up for electronic
notification. Electronic notification is cost and resource efficient, allows for broad-
based and rapid notification, and any duplicates can be deleted without use of paper
or impacting landfills. Staff recommends continuing this practice. This would be in
addition to the minimum legal requirements for public notification.
Duplication of notices has also been an area of concern. When the City issues its
own notices utilizing the City's records, duplication can be minimized. However, the
City and others (developers) sometimes use third-party vendors who provide their
own mailing lists. In those cases, the City does not control the source of address
information and the incidents of duplication may be higher. When possible, the City
does use its internal notification system to produce the addresses.
E. Identifiable
There has also been a concern expressed related to the need to insure the official
notices of the City are readily identifiable as an "OFFICIAL NOTICE". Therefore,
staff has proposed that all Official Notices of the City, whenever possible, would
include the following:City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
• A statement signed by the City Clerk that the notice is "OFFICIAL
NOTICE."
• The use of an identifiable symbol(s) - staff will provide an example
as part of the PowerPoint presentation
Use of the City Seal is controlled solely by the City. Unauthorized use is a violation
of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC). Using the Seal along with other
identifiable symbol(s) and/or statement by the City Clerk would be a quick and easy
way for members of the community to know that what they are receiving is an official
City notice.
Also, it has been mentioned that some notices can be enhanced by providing a more
descriptive comment rather than something in legalees." Sometimes, there may be
certain language that is legally required; however, staff can also add more
descriptive wording.
Sending Notice vs. Receiving Notice:
Staff also wishes to comment briefly on the difference between sending notice and
receiving notice. Using a reliable and consistent process, the City can insure that
notices are sent. However, the City cannot guarantee any individual notice is
received by the intended recipient because delivery is accomplished via cyberspace
the United States Postal Service (both of which are often reliable but not
guaranteed).
Administrative Process:
Should the City Council determine to implement these recommendations, staff will
amend its administrative processes to include an enhanced public notification
disclosure in the appropriate box on the standard staff report or to use a standard
attachment to staff reports that will very clearly indicate what address lists were used
for the notification process. Names of e-mail and postal distribution lists will be
included; however, individual email and postal addresses will not be included.
Additionally, staff will have access to lists used in the notification process during
Council meetings to allow staff to respond to comments which state that a particular
person was not sent a notice.
Use of the City's PEG Channel
The upcoming unveiling of the new and improved Channel 35 (CCTV 35), the City's
government channel, will include a public notification portion of the slide show whichCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
will be broadcast on CCTV 35 when live or rebroadcast meetings are not being
shown.
Payment for Notices Related to Specific Projects
As part of the staff working group process, it was discovered that the City currently
bears the cost of notification for development applications. Staff recommends the
City Council direct staff to prepare a fee that would be applied to developments that
would offset the costs of staff-produced public notification. If directed, staff will
include this proposed fee in the fees and charges schedule, which is scheduled to
be heard by City Council in early May.
II. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.
Current Process for Discretionary Permits
The City has certain statutory requirements related to public notification for public
hearings which are tied to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections
65920, et seq.) and the City's Zoning Code. The intent of the Permit Streamlining
Act is to ensure a fair and expeditious review and disposition of discretionary permit
applications. The following is the State mandated timeline for project review and
disposition:
1. 30 days from the date of application submission to review and accept a
project application as complete or the application is automatically deemed
to be complete.
2. Maximum 180 days from the date of application submission for projects
that are exempt from environmental review or require a negative
declaration.
3. Maximum of one year from the date of application submission for projects
requiring an EIR with statutory requirements for preparation and
circulation of the EIR.
All time periods are maximums and the permitting agency should approve or deny a
project in a shorter period whenever possible pursuant to Government Code Section
65953 of the Permit Streamlining Act. What this means is that the City cannot
arbitrarily decide when or how long to take in reviewing and reaching a disposition
on development permit applications. Importantly, these statutory requirements for
processing also further ensures public review and input when a project requires
environmental review, including the preparation of an environmental impact report or
other environmental document, as the statutory time limits of permit streamlining are
integrated with those for environmental review.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
CCMC Chapter 17.630 "Public Hearings and Administrative Review" (Attachment
No. 1) outlines the City's legal noticing and hearing requirements for discretionary
project applications. There are three types of legally required notices (See Table 6-
2): All projects require a 21 day mailed notice prior to the hearing or decision date;
for certain projects, the project site is required to be posted 21 days in advance of
the hearing date; and some projects require a 14 day published notice in advance of
the hearing date. CCMC Chapter 17.630 further outlines the procedures for mailed,
posted and published notices. Finally, the Chapter outlines provisions of various
levels of decision making from the administrative level (Community Development
Director) to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In addition to statutory requirements, staff and the City Council have instituted other
measures recently that go beyond the legal minimum requirements for conducting
public outreach. These include: (1) extending the area for mailed public notification
from a radius of 300' to 500' (to the end of the block) and (2) expanding the
discretionary application submittal requirements to include a Public Participation
Plan. (Please see Attachment No. 2 — Discretionary Project Review Process/
Community Involvement).
Finally, there are internal review processes and deadlines for discretionary permits.
The following outlines the internal staff review and preparation schedule from once
an application is deemed complete to the public hearing:
Step Timing
1 Application Submitted Day 1
2 Internal Staff Review +7
Project First Notice Letter Mailed +10
4 Project Review Committee
(PRC) Meeting
+14
5 Application Completeness
Determination and CEQA
Determination
+30
6 Draft CEQA document (Negative
Declaration or Categorical
Exemption) due to Senior
Planner
+42
7 Draft Public Notice due to Senior
Planner
+60
8 Draft CEQA document due to
Planning Manager
+49
9 Draft Public Notice due to Senior
Planner
+56
10 Final Public Notice due to Admin. +63City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Staff
11 21 day Public Notice
Mailed/Posted/Published
+70
12 Draft Staff Report due to Senior
Planner
+70
13 Draft Staff Report Due to
Planning Manager
+75
14 Final Report for Copying to
Admin. Staff
+78
15 Packet Delivered to Planning
Commission
+81
16 Public Hearing +91
As outlined above, it takes approximately 90 days to get an item to a public hearing
following application submittal. If the project is not deemed complete within 30 days,
then whatever time is needed to deem the application complete is added to the 90
days. In addition, if the project requires an environmental impact report, up to 270
days can be added to the process.
The process for reaching out earlier to the public can be established as a
requirement in the application and processing of development permits as outlined in
Attachment No. 2. The public outreach can be formalized with the requirement that a
developer submit a Public Participation Plan for certain classes of projects that must
be approved prior to deeming a project application complete and commencement of
processing. The Plan can identify the number of meetings or other types of
outreach, date, time and location of meetings or other outreach method and the
number of expected participants. The Public Outreach Plan can be used by
Commission or Council as part of the review during deliberations and may ultimately
help achieve consensus on the project.
Non-Discretionary Projects
For non-discretionary projects that are not governed by the Government Code
noticing requirements and the Permit Streamlining Act, the Council may want to
consider lengthier and a more elaborate public vetting process. These may include:
• Designing a Public Outreach Process as part of the project
• Preparing a Visioning Program to identify goals, policies and objectives
• Linking public input suggestions to an action plan
Part of the decision making on what type of outreach to use turns on whether the
interest is to get a deeper sense of public values, ranked preferences and most
favorable design, or merely to obtain consensus on some or all parts of a project or
plan. The use of one method as opposed to another is therefore a function of time,City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
budget and the desired outcome. As indicated in the January staff report on this
matter, the intent should not merely be to provide information, but to ensure that the
outreach method relates to the type of project so that it is usable. If a proposed
discretionary development comports with the Zoning Code and the General Plan, it
does not make sense from a public outreach standpoint to identify whether the
project should be constructed but rather how the project should be constructed.
Recent focus by the Planning Division to create a better fit between a project and the
neighborhood through implementation of design guidelines may help achieve this
objective.
Possible Strategies
Other methods for obtaining public comment to address larger planning issues may
include stakeholder interviews, surveys, workshops, charrettes, press releases,
blogs, speaker series, forums newsletters, public information displays and informal
kaffe klatches, block meetings and homeowner meetings. The methods for
alternative outreach for non-discretionary projects are summarized on Attachment
No. 3 comparing the outreach method with the expected outcome.
The City has also gathered public input by establishing advisory committees. These
committees vary in purpose and can provided valuable advice.
Survey of Other Cities
Staff previously surveyed the Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Los Angeles,
Beverly Hills and Burbank regarding their methods for development related public
notification and community involvement which is summarized on Attachment No. 4.
The methods for involving the public during development hearings are very similar
among the surveyed cities, with the exception of Los Angeles which, due to that
city's size, utilizes a Neighborhood Council system. Each Council District in Los
Angeles contains approximately 250,000 people and the neighborhood councils
serve, on the average, between 20,000 and 40,000 people, so instituting a more
decentralized form for project review was deemed essential in order to make the
process more accessible to the public.
Conclusions
In summary, the methods for encouraging public participation in the development
process vary widely depending upon the goals and desired outcomes. Encouraging
the public to attend meetings on the Housing Element or some other long-range
planning project involves a broader effort aimed as much at visioning and identifying
goals, as it does in obtaining consensus. Alternatively, development projects that
comport with the Zoning Code and General Plan require much greater focus onCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
consensus building during the hearing process and less on community visioning and
goals.
In crafting its process for community involvement in the development process, the
City should direct resources to achieving greater public input by focusing on the
desired outcomes. For development permit processing, the methods for public
outreach can range from a series of informal decentralized neighborhood meetings
to formal hearings, forums or workshops. Merely issuing more public notices or
mailings or publishing ads earlier in the project review process cannot guarantee
more public input. Further, while the design of the public notification may help make
understanding a complex development project easier and the process more
accessible to the public, it cannot ensure more participation during hearings.
The process for reaching out earlier to the public should become a requirement in
the application and processing of development permits. One model that the Council
may want to consider is to require that the developer submit a Public Participation
Plan which must be approved prior to deeming a project application complete and
commencing with processing the application. The Plan can identify the number of
meetings or other types of outreach, date, time and location of meetings or other
outreach method and the number of expected participants. The Plan can be used
by Commission or Council as part of the review during deliberations and may
ultimately help achieve consensus on a project.
The City has embraced long term sustainability and environmentally sensitive
practices. Cost efficiency of moving to an e-mail based system in public notification
can also help advance these environmental goals.
In summary, the Council should consider the following recommendations for early
public outreach and public notification:
• Targeted outreach to specific entities
• Evaluating outreach options relative to stated goals (consensus vs. goal
setting)
• Pursuit of sustainable/green vision for notification within a specified period.
• Public notification postings and placement to maximize visibility
• Public Participation Plan for all major discretionary projects
• Early mandatory notification for all development projects.
Next Steps
This evening, staff is requesting general input from the City Council and community
on the topics presented. The City Council may determine it wishes to provideCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
direction this evening. As part of that direction, the City Council may wish to
consider the following:
• Determine additional information/input is desired and direct staff to schedule a
further meeting (Vice Mayor Silbiger has suggested a workshop format to
allow for a more interactive discussion)
• Direct staff to prepare City Council Policies based upon the input/direction
received this evening and return to the City Council at a future date for
discussion and potential adoption of such policies.
• Direct staff to retain the current policies/procedures.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Discussion of this topic does not create a fiscal impact. However, based upon any
modifications the City Council may deem necessary, additional notification and staff
coordination efforts would have an associated cost. These costs could be significant
and will be presented with a future staff report and be based upon the direction the
City Council may deem appropriate to provide this evening.
In Fiscal Year 2007/2008, a total of $215,000 was expended from the primary public
notification related accounts (i.e. printing and binding; postage and delivery; and
advertising and public relations). For Fiscal Year 2008/2009, $350,000 has been
budgeted and $155,807 has been expended through February 2009 in public
notification related accounts. It should be noted that the above costs do not include
additional staff time, paper (if the notices are produced internally by the Graphics
Division), or additional maintenance costs associated with more copies being
generated by the City's printers and copiers.
NOTES:
1. The League of Cities has reported on new efforts to initiate civic participation in Western Cities
magazine -- Civic Participation 2008, authored by Terry Amsler, Program Director for the Institute
of Local Government' Collaborative Governance Initiative.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CCMC Chapter 17.320
2. Discretionary Project Review Process/ Community Involvement Matrix
3. Methods for Alternative Outreach for Non-Discretionary ProjectsCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
4. Summary Table of Other Cities Requirements
5. Staff Report and City Council Policy 2007-002 (Public Notification)
MOTION:
That The Council:
Receive and file the report and direct staff as deemed appropriate. Page 5 of 12
March 30, 2009
Item A-2
Discussion of Public Notification and Community Involvement in the
Development Processes
Staff provided an in-depth explanation of the current process and the
proposed improvements.
The following members of the audience addressed the City Council:
Dr. Janet Hoult read a poem she wrote on the community involvement in
the development process.
Charles Hoult voiced concern with distances used in determining who is
notified; and support for the developer paying for costs associated
with notification.
Arin Mikailian, reporter, Culver City Wave Newspaper, suggested the
City advertise with his paper.
Joseph Miller, real estate developer, offered his perspective on the
issue.
Jim Behnke spoke of wasted time and money due to the lack of community
involvement.
Scott Wyant, Culver City Chamber of Commerce, read a letter from Rich
Hibbs stating their position on the issue. He also shared his
personal experiences and opinion on notification.
Disa Lindgren suggested the creation of an advisory committee; and
outreach to businesses in conjunction with the Culver City Chamber of
Commerce.
Cathrine Yanda suggested a public workshop, and asked that
notification continue after construction starts.
Tom Camarella distributed comments from the Neighborhood Action
Network on the staff report including support for early, mandatory
community meetings.
nahtml:http://www.culvercity.org/pdfs_minutes/512200922837PMm090330.mht 3/29/2010Page 6 of 12
March 30, 2009
Item A-2
(continued)
Eleanor Osgood requested neighborhoods be noticed when community
property is going to be sold; felt that decisions for the City Council
should also apply to the Redevelopment Agency; and also felt that the
City was not aware of what people really want to be notified about.
Rich Waters commented that Town Hall meetings were usually conducted
in a give and take format; felt there should be citizens on the
Traffic Committee; suggested that the Planning Department not notify
an applicant when their permit lapses; requested tentative dates for
issues rather than 72-hour notice; provided energy efficient
landscaping suggestions; and felt the Redevelopment Agency should do
the same things proposed for the City Council in terms of planning.
Cary Anderson expressed concerns with properties discussed in closed
session that do not require public notification or community
involvement.
At this time, Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director,
explained Redevelopment Agency procedures for proposals.
Audience participation continued
Meghan Sahli Wells requested that residents be given a role in
development decisions, noting that residents wanted smart growth that
does not destroy neighborhood character for short-term profit.
Goran Eriksson noted the responsibility of individuals to keep
themselves informed; and expressed opposition to the formation of a
local Planning Commission or local official neighborhood groups as he
felt that woUld add a layer of government and remove him further from
the process.
mhtml:http://www.culvereity.org/pdfs_minutes/512200922837PMm090330.mht 3/29/2010Page 7 of 12
March 30, 2009
Item A-2
(continued)
Steven Rose, representing the Culver City Chamber of Commerce,
expressed concern with the City Council turning over negotiations to
an organization; felt the city had become more responsive; cited
recent projects where developers reached out to the community;
suggested that staff prepare a list of required steps for developers
before they can move forward; felt the City Council should consider
the entire community; and he suggested a time limit for project
approvals, as the Irving Place development took too long.
Ela Valladares, Deputy City Clerk, read written comments submitted by:
Jonathan Levy
Julie Ltgo Cerra
Kevin Lachoff
Sandra Kallandar
Tony Pappas
. Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
clarification that any variances require a public participation plan
in addition to other requirements; acknowledgement of prior public
notification issues and the work done by staff to improve them; the
City's intent to be transparent; closed session items; public
notification issues including language used and newspaper ads;
updating ordinances; and evolving public involvement in the
development process.
Discussion continued regarding the number of households in the City
able to view the meetings on cable or online; effective utilization of
current tools; the master email notification list; improving the user
friendliness of the City website; creating a consolidated database;
community notification requirements for discretionary approvals;
policies of other cities; support for future community workshop
meetings including residents, businesses and developers; a suggestion
to have a computer at City Hall so people can sign up for the mailing
• list on the spot; alternative public notification methods; and a
checklist for public notification on staff reports,
mhtml:http://www.culvercity.org/pdfs_minutes/512200922837PMm090330.mht 3/29/2010Page 8 of 12
March 30, 2009
Item A-2
(continued)
Further discussion ensued regarding balancing input from developers
and residents; support for a resident based committee, councilmember
committee or a combination; a suggestion to create a development map
for the City website; streamlining the process; not wanting to waste
staff time on determining whether the notification process was done
correctly; rules for Agency owned property; issues with traffic
studies; buffer zones; mandatory communication between developers and
residents; posting development application summaries online; providing
tentative agendas to newspapers; a dedicated email address for public
comments for the Council meeting; and the willingness of developers to
meet with neighbors and disclose information.
Councilmember Silbiger moved that staff bring the topic back as an
agendized issue at the May 4, 2009 Council/Redevelopment meeting, with
staff taking into consideration suggestions Made including a
suggestion that a Community Advisory Committee be created involving
public notification and public input.
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, discussed
implementation of various aspects; commonality of Council comments;
agreement that the item should return to the Council; agenda items
already scheduled for the beginning of May; bringing the item back
with a summary in May; items that can be implemented without
additional direction; formulation of a policy; flexibility of the
date; and the formal notification processes.
Councilmember Silbiger amended the motion to have the item return in
May 2009. Councilmember Armenta seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff regarding
involving the new City Manager in the process; re-hearing the item on
the fifth Monday in June; and agreement on how to proceed with easy to
implement items.
mhtml:http://www.culvercity.org/pdfs_minutes/512200922837PMm090330,rnht 3/29/2010Page 9 ot 12
March 30, 2009
Item A-2
(continued)
Following discussion, the following motion was voted on:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER SILBIGER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ARMENTA AND
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. DIRECT STAFF TO BRING THE TOPIC BACK AS AN AGENDIZED ITEM ON JUNE
29, 2009;
2.DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE A LIST OF SUGGESTIONS THAT STAFF CAN
IMPLEMENT BY MAY 1, 2009, WITH ONE WEEK ALLOWED FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO RESPOND; AND ANY ITEMS WITH AN OBJECTION
BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE JUNE 29, 2009 MEETING; AND
3. DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND
PUBLIC INPUT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING CREATION OF A
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
o0o
Added Item
Mayor Malsin announced performances by Culver City Performing Arts
Grants recipients Benita Bike's DanceArt on April 2, 2009; Great Leap
on April 5, 2009; and Louise ReiChlin and Dancers on April 7, 2009.
He also noted that the Culver City Symphony Orchestra would be
performing on April 4, 2009 and the Fourth Annual Artwalk Culver City
would be held on May 30, 2009.
o0o
mhtml:http://www.culvereity.org/pdfs_minutes/51220092283711Mm090330.mht 3/29/2010Public Notification: (E-Mail) Agenda and Meetings City Council (01106/10)
City Manager Approval:
Mark Scott (01/06/10)
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 01/11110
Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Receipt of a Report and Discussion and Approval
of Recommendations from the City Manager on the Subjects of Public
Notification and Public Involvement in the Development Process
Contact Person/Dept.: Mark Scott Phone Number: 310-253-6000
Fiscal Impac Yes
[X]
General Fund: Yes I]
Public Hearing:
Action Item:
Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes
[X]
Date:
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (01/06/10)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol A. Schwab (by H. Baker) (01/06/10)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report from the City Manager on
the subjects of public notification and public involvement in the development process
and consider and approve recommendations from the City Manager on those
subjects.
DISCUSSION:
The subjects of public notification and public involvement in the development
process were discussed at length at the City Council meeting of March 30, 2009. In
response the City Council's direction provided at that meeting, staff has
implemented a significant number of improvements to both processes.
The City Manager's report on this subject, including recommendations on both
subjects are included in the attachment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum from the City Manager to the City Council regarding Public
Notification and Public Involvement in the Development Process
MOTIONS: City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
That the City Council:
(1) Receive and file the report from the City Manager; and,
(2) Consider the recommendations contained in said report; and,
(3) Approve the recommendations from the City Manager. Ca/eh-CITY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 01/11/10
TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Mark Scott, City Manager
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS RE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENTIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Background
On January 11, per City Council direction, staff has agendized a discussion of
the Public Notification and Community Input process as it relates to development
applications. The topic was last addressed by the City Council at a Town Hall
meeting on March 30, 2009. At that meeting, Assistant City Manager Martin Cole
and Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld jointly presented a staff
recommendation for an enhanced notification/public input process, Following
staffs presentation, approximately 15 speakers added comments, followed by
numerous City Council comments. Ultimately, staff was directed to obtain input
from the new City Manager and to bring the matter back for City Council action at
a subsequent meeting. While staff acknowledges that we have missed the
follow-up date, we are pleased to bring the matter back for City Council review at
this time.
Attachments 1 and 2 are summaries of follow-up items prepared by staff
following the March 30 Meeting:
Attachment 1 is a list of follow-up items addressed to the City Council by Martin
Cole in an email dated April 21, 2009. Most of these items have been achieved.
They include:
• Full page newspaper ads — Staff ran several full-page ads. In addition to
the full page ads in both of the local newspapers, staff has also included a
similar ad in the quarterly Culver City Living. Staff has been carefully
monitoring the telephone calls to the City Clerk's Office in response to
these ads. While interested community members may have signed
themselves up for the E-Mail notification list(s) via the City's website
(individual subscribers have risen from approximately 700 in May, 2009 to
1.030 on January 7, 2010), the City Clerk's Office has received no
telephonic responses to these ads.
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507Page 2 of 5
• Sign-up lists on Service Counters — This was done immediately. There
has not been significant response to these, but staff will update the effort
and try to make it more visible.
• Channel 35 slideshow — Has been implemented. Slides of public
notification will be added by the end of February.
• Notice to current users to confirm ongoing interest in receiving notices — I
am advised that there was objection to the initial format of this message
received from Council members and it was not implemented in that format.
However, an e-mail was sent to all subscribers informing them of the
improved notification categories and the ability of subscribers to tailor their.
subscription to their needs.
• Organization of Master Email list into more recognizable categories —
Implemented.
• Determine interest of local newspapers in running (at no charge) tentative
lists of upcoming agenda items — This has not been implemented. First
response from newspapers was not favorable, and staff is concerned
about reliability of tentative lists of future agenda items.
• Improved speaker card format — The speaker card was amended to
clearly provide for a space for community members to provide their e-mail
address. All e-mail addresses provided have been entered into the public
notification system in the broadest notification category. Staff prepared a
draft format of a further improved speaker's card concurrently with the
agenda format updates, but could do this sooner.
• Enhanced Public Notification section on staff agenda reports Achieved
using the improved notification categories presented to the City Council on
March 30, 2009.
Attachment 2 is a copy of a May 5, 2009 memorandum to the City Council_ The
memorandum summarizes the comments and recommendations made at the
March 30 meeting, enhancing or exceeding those recommended by staff during
their presentation. Since the memo was done, staff believes it has implemented
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13. That leaves the following items that staff
has not addressed:
• Item 8 — Use Notification process/involvement from other cities
• Item 11 — If developer meets with staff, community should have equal
meetings
• Item 12 — Set up advisory committee to review notification details
FA-E. NAME: CITY CuL)ci SLISCOIAM 3 S - FINAL.Doc PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERPage 3 of 5
• Item 14 Set up computer in back of City Council Chamber to allow
notification sign-ups
• Item 15 — Provide tentative agenda to The Wave newspaper. (My guess
is that this should have said all local newspapers?)
With respect to Item 8, as presented to the City Council on March 30, 2009,
Culver City's notification process generally exceeds the processes used by other
cities. Based upon a comment made at the March 30, 2009 meeting, staff
reviewed the websites of the cities of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica. While
the information available from those two cities is in a different format, similar
information for Culver City projects is available on the City's website.
it is a challenging goal to achieve a one for one parity of the number of meetings
between staff and the developer and between staff and the public. The improved
procedure has significantly increased the number of required opportunities for
public involvement and input. Staff will provide further details on this subject at
the City Council meeting.
In regard to an advisory committee, staff is always happy to address the interests
of local citizens. We feel it is unnecessary to appoint a fomial group to help staff
implement notification process. From my own experience as both a Community
Development Director and a City Manager, I know that there are times, especially
on potentially controversial projects, that staff needs to facilitate active
community and interest group participation from start-to-finish on development
review process. As the City Council is aware, I am anxious to address ongoing,
active community participation through neighborhood associations, neighborhood
watch groups and, especially, through a General Plan Update process. I do not
feel there is a one-size-fits-all solution to project processing. I think it has to be
tailored and it has to rely on an open, reliable relationship between staff and any
affected neighborhood. We are not a large City. I believe our time will be best
spent opening up that dialogue and trust relationship.
Item 14 calls for installation of a computer in the back of the City Council
Chamber so that members of the community can personally input their own
request for public notices through our email notification process. This has clearly
taken longer than desirable. However, I am advised by staff that this will be
-achieved this month. I have had the installation described to me. It is a
somewhat more complicated process than meets the eye, but it is achievable
and should be done very shortly.
In regard to the concept of "tentative agendas" in local newspapers, we are not
opposed to the concept. We do believe, however, that it is challenging to predict
meeting dates. Publishing an incorrect meeting date runs the risk of attracting
the public for the wrong date and potentially confusing the public about the
difference between a tentative agenda and the officially published and posted
FRE NAHE C rry CouNciL SUBoMI s F INAL DOC PRINTED ON REGYCLED PAPERPage 4 of 5
agenda. We continue to believe it is preferable to educate the public on how to
find the most current agenda information on the City website.
City Manager Comments and Recommendations:
I regret that this report was not brought back to the City Council at an earlier
date. I think with some justification, staff felt that it received direction from the
City Council on March 30 to implement most of the recommendations. Staff has
also acted in good faith to do so. For the most part, staff does not feel it is
necessary to take more than "minute action" to direct the action.
Having reviewed the material now at some length, I wish to make the following
comments and recommendations to the City Council on January 11:
• Culver City has achieved a FAR more elaborate public outreach and
notification process than exists in the vast majority of cities in the State. I
would guess it is among the premier processes. I believe all involved in
this process deserve credit. I believe the staff team involved deserves
recognition, and I believe the process may be worthy of nomination for
awards in the municipal government world. This City has spent a great
deal of time and resource developing processes, software and internal
systems to enact such an elaborate system.
•
Having made the preceding point, please let me acknowledge that there
will still be a learning curve associated with the process for several
reasons:
O We have had very few development projects move forward in
recent months. We are not yet practiced or proficient in this new
process. Lists of rules are no substitute for experience and learned
judgment. We need to leave room for learning curve and good
intentions. Staff will provide additional details on the process used
for one of the most recent development proposals at the City
Council meeting.
o While the improvements made have incorporated "plain English,"
sometimes the concepts and proposals staff is attempting to
convey are complex. Writing plain English is not everyone's skill.
[Evidence, perhaps, this report.] We will need to discipline
ourselves in doing this as well as we can and continue to make
further improvements.
O I would observe that we may have reached the point that we have
overloaded some people with e-mail notifications. Almost every
professional conference I attend includes sessions on 'What to do
about information overload." I suspect there are other methods that
FILE RARE: crry CouNciL suecomul I 1 exs -FiNAL.DM PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERPage 5 of 5
we have not yet tapped, and I believe we have not yet solved the
dilemma of how best to involve a community.
o Cost IS an issue with this process. Cost has to matter to us. We
should evaluate our processes over time to make sure we only
invest in those with reasonable payback. Staff will present some
cost related information at the City Council meeting.
o In listening to the meeting tape, I was tweaked by suggestions that
the bulk of cost should be borne by developer fees. Clearly,
developers pay most of the bills on applications filed in any of the
Westside cities. I endorse it up to the point that what we are
requiring is effective and reasonable. I do think we need to address
such pass-thrus as reasonably and respectfully as we can
• Whenever we adopt this process, we should take proactive steps to
introduce it to the community, thru neighborhood associations,
neighborhood watch meetings, civic associations, etc. It should be noted
that as part of the efforts staff undertook as a result of the March 30, 2009
Council Meeting, staff sent a request to 60 identifiable "homeowners
groups" requesting their e-mail and other contact information for
notification purposes. Approximately 20 responses were received. I have
asked Sol Blumenfeld to prepare a brief presentation of the process for
delivery to the City Council on January 11, 2010. We can also tape a
topic-specific cable TV show on this subject for replay on Channel 35 and
on DVD for other interested parties.
• I do recommend that the City Council take minute action to express the
City Council's intent that this notification process be used by staff. I do not
believe it requires more formal adoption. If you prefer more formal
adoption, we can bring it back on a future agenda.
• I feel very strongly, however, that we should not adopt this process as the
City's required "minimum notification standard." This is an extensive,
sophisticated process. I am concerned that we could risk future decision
actions for failure to meet an unclear notification standard. Courts have
overturned City Council or Planning Commission decisions on very small
omissions on much simpler notification standards. I would defer to the
City Attorney for further thoughts on this subject.
Staff is proud of the work of the City Council and community on this subject. We
are prepared to discuss the matter in further detail on January 11. Both Mr. Cole
and Mr. Blumenfeld will be available to reprise a shortened version of their
presentation from March 30, if it is the City Council desire to have them do so.
FILE NAME. CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE- FINALDOC PRINTED ON Rr-cTcLED PAPERATTAckkmeAn-
From: "Cole, Martin"
To: "Armenta, Christopher" , "Malsin, Scott"
, O'Leary, Micheal ,
"Silbiger, Gary" , "Weissman, Andrew"
Cc: EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT , "Baker, Heather"
, "Valladares, Ela"
Subject: Public Notification
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:49:40 -0700
Good afternoon, Honorable Council Members:
I understand at last evening's meeting, the City Council had some questions related to Public
Notification. I wanted to share with you the process currently being undertaken by staff.
Pursuant to your general direction provided at the March 30, 2009 City Council meeting, staff is
preparing the following:
(1) A full page advertisement in both local newspapers inviting all interested parties to sign up
for the City's updated public notification processes (e-mail, LISPS address, or both). The first
of these ads will run in May (May 7 will be the first publication date).
(2) Staff will have a new sign up list for interested parties available at Council/Agency meetings
and on all City service counters. These will be available beginning on May 4, 2009.
(3)
Culver City TV Channel 35 is scheduled to begin airing local programming and a slideshow
of City information beginning on May 4, 2009. Slides will be dedicated to the public
notification process and include "plain language" synopses of current public notification
items. This "pre-launch" date is still tentative pending resolution of certain technical issues.
(4) A notice
will be sent to all current subscribers to all e-mail lists' currently on tile with the City
(once item 5 below is completed) asking them if they still wish to continue to be on the
notification list or if they wish to make any changes to their notification categories,
(5)
Prior to these being implemented, staff will reorganize what has been known as the Master E-
Mail Notification List into more easily recognizable categories. A USPS notification list will
follow the same process.
(6)
Staff has already contacted the local newspapers to see if there is interest in including (free of
charge to the City) a list of tentative items on upcoming City Council and Agency agendas.
Initial interest has been expressed by the local papers. Staff will continue to work with the
two papers to agree upon a format and deadlines for such entries. If the newspapers provide
final agreement, this is expected to begin publication no later than the first edition of the
newspapers following July 1, 2009.(7) Beginning with City Council/Agency meetings after My 1, 2009, an improved speaker's
card will be available to assist persons in signing up for the City's notification process.
(8) Beginning with staff reports presented at meetings after July 1, 2009, the Public Notification
section of the staff report will be enhanced (or replaced with a separate attachment lithe list
of notified parties is extensive)
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call or email. Have a good Tuesday.
ie Col&
Martin R. Cole, MPA
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
City of Culver City
Post Office Box 507
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City, California 90232-0507
(310) 253-6007ATTAfckkoleksi--
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO;
THROUGH;
FROM;
May 5, 2009
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JERRY FULWOOD, CITY MANAGER
MARTIN COLE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SQL BLUMENFELD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
THOMAS GORHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC OUTREACH RECOMMENDATIONS
On
March 30, 2009 the City Council considered proposed amendments to the Municipal Code
relative to community outreach and provide comments on items to follow up immediately and
those that required further consideration. The following summarizes the recommendations
presented at the meeting.
Public Outreach Recommendation
1. Notices — Use plain English, less legalize
2. Find regular location for news ads in papers
3. Mandatory preliminary development meetings
4. Post card font is too small
5. Notice title must be larger and more readable
6. Fix subject line / understandable & describe development stage
7. Development applications online
8. Use notification process / involvement from other cities
9. Broaden notification for larger projects >500'
10. Pass extra notification costs on to developer
11. If developer meets with staff, community should have equal meetings
12. Set up committee advisory to review details
13. Post redevelopment property for sale on the website
14. Computer at back of Council Chambers
15. Provide tentative agenda to Wave
16. Always notify residential abutting commercial projects
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
TEL 310.253.5700 FAX 310.253.5779Items for Implementation:
Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14 can be implemented immediately without further direction. Staff has
commenced with rewriting the public notices using plain English with less legal jargon, larger
title headings, in a more user friendly format (See Attached Sample). A new detailed
discretionary project application schedule has been prepared for meetings (including mandatory
preliminary development meetings) and public hearings (See Attached Sample). Staff has
posted all redevelopment properties on the City's website noting the address and contact
information. The listing will be updated as any property is made available for sale. Finally, a
computer will be installed in the Council Chambers that will facilitate receipt of public comment
and review of on-line staff reports and attachments during Council meetings.
Items for Consideration:
Items 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 will be discussed in more detail during the follow-up meeting
on public outreach scheduled for June 29, 2009.
Conclusion:
(Staff is in the process of completing Item 7. Staff does implement Item 16.)
2January 11, 2010
Action Items
Item A-1
Receipt of a Report and Discussion and Approval of
Recommendations from the City Manager on the Subjects of
Public Notification and Public Involvement in the
Development Process.
Mark Scott, City Manager, provided background information
on the item.
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, provided a
presentation on actions taken to improve public
notification since March 30, 2009.
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director, provided a
presentation On public participation in the development
process.
Mayor Weissman invited public participation.
The following members of the audience addressed the City
Council
Meghan Sahli Wells appreciated efforts made and suggested
encouraging people to opt out of paper notification and
using "robocalls" for those who de not use the IntOfnet.
She stressed the importance of proper notification and
suggested a survey on the City website to solicit feedback.
Tony Pappas felt that public notification should include
those who have previously expressed interest on an item
even if they are not within 500 feet and he wanted to see
the online community forum reinstated and more Town Hall
meetings.
Tom Camarella wanted to see a simplified list of items
requested at the meeting of March 30, 2009 and information
on changes made; and discussed the radius required for
public notification in regards to the size of a project.
6January 11, 2010
Item A-1
(continued)
Rich Waters noted the need for clarification regarding the
"other" category regarding email notification on the
website; felt it was important to target affected
neighborhoods, neighborhood associations and neighborhood
watch groups; and discussed the closed session reports and
the amount of land in the redevelopment area in the City
which residents have no input in.
Catherine Yanda encouraged the City Council to find out why
there is no attendance at meeting8 rather than assuming
that people just don't care.
Disa Lindgren suggested making an interactive map available
online for development projects.
Ela Valladares, Deputy City Clerk, read written comments
submitted by:
Bryan Tjomsland
Mark Scott, City Manager, responded to speaker comments
regarding notifications sent by mail; broadening the
500-foot notice depending on the impact of a project; Town
Hall meetings; additions to the website; targeting
homeowner associations; publicizing the status of
Redevelopment Agency projects; assistance from ACOR; and
feasibility of an online interactive map.
Martin Cole, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk, reported
that neighborhood watch groups had been incorporated into
the notification system-.
7January 11, 2010
Item A-1
(continued)
Discussion ensued between the City Council and staff
regarding public notification for all issues, not just
development; formalizing the process by putting it in
writing; notification procedures for tonight's meeting; the
importance of notifying those people who have previously
expressed interest in a topic; improvements made to
notification procedures; a mechanism to ensure that topics
come back in a timely manner; study sessions versus public
hearings; the timing of addressing an issue and public
input; progress made addressing the-non-controversial
suggestions made at the Council Meeting of March 30, 2009;
additional information regarding implementation of
individual items; improveMent8 to Channel 35, the public
access channel; feasibility Of posting tentative agendas;
bi-monthly meetings and staff preparation time; providing
synopses of City Council meetings to local papers; posting
information regarding what is "coming soon"; the public
notification and email lists, and notifications by
departments; the availability of attachments and more
detailed information; parity between developer and
community meetings; and feasibility of establishing a
Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
At this time, Disa Lindgren reported that she had brought
up having a CAC at the March 30, 2009 meeting, as she had
done research on the issue with regard to other cities.
8January 11, 2010
Item A-1
(continued)
Further discussion ensued regarding a request to have the
topic of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) brought back
for discussion; creating a written public notification
policy; community outreach guidelines; adding the City
Council to the public outreach list; guidelines for when
the 500-foot radius should be expanded; a written policy
available to developers with requirements; outreach
meetings; a computer terminal for the public at the rear of
the Council Chambers to sign up for email notification;
next steps in the process; a clear presentation of the
changes made to the process; notifications to neighborhood
organizations, homeowners associations and schools;
traveling Town Hall Meetings; the responsibility of the
neighborhood associations to disseminate the information
from the City; minimum standards versus what is actually
done by staff; enhancements to the public participation
process; monitoring the process and further improvements;
creation of a CAC and expanding ACOR duties; and policy
memorandums on public notification and public participation
policies.
o0o
Discussion/Action
Item D-1
Discussion of the Subject of Sustainability, including a
Report from the Sustainability Subcommittee, and the Topic
of Water Conservation.
Helen Kerstein, Management Analyst, Public Works
Department, provided a brief summary of outreach done
regarding water conservation.
Councilmember Silbiger suggested having an official
environmental sustainability committee in Culver City
appointed by the City Council that would meet regularly in
public and make suggestions of specific improvements in the
quality of the environment, including sustainable
solutions.
9RESOLUTION NO. 2010-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT NO. 2010-01 ENTITLED
"PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNITY INVOVLEMENT
IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS" AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTON NO. 2007-R077.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Culver City places great emphasis
on providing the Culver City community with an opportunity to be involved in the
governmental process; and
WHEREAS, notification and opportunity to provide, input are two important ways
the City can engage the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the city of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts City Council Policy
Statement No. 2010-01, entitled "Public Notification and Community Involvement in the
Development Process," which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
2. City Council Policy Statement No. 2010-01 shall be effective upon the
adoption of this Resolution and shall supersede and replace City Council Policy Statement
No. 2007-002.
///
///
/11
//
11/
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
283. City Council Policy Resolution No. 2007-R077 is hereby rescinded.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this
day of 2010.
ANDREW WEISSMAN, MAYOR
City Of Culver City, California
ATTEST: APPRO ERAS TO FORM:
11,411 1.
w i g( 11 41111 ._ w,...0-er
MARTIN R. COLE, CAROL A. SCHWAB,
City Clerk fcr-LCity Attorney
A10-00118
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28DRAFT
City Council Adopted Policy Subject Matter: Public Notification and Community Involvement
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide general guidelines for staff to use when
preparing public notifications of various actions to be considered by the City
Council, the City's Commissions/Boards/Committees, and staff, where
applicable.
This Policy shall be consistent with the City Charter and other applicable laws.
CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS
Section 610 of the City Charter states:
The City Council shall comply with the applicable provisions of State
law regarding the giving of notice for regular and special meetings.
The City Council shall consider whether it should establish additional
procedures to provide efficient, timely and cost-effective notice in a
manner consistent with currently available technology.
This Policy is established in accordance with this City Charter provision.
LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE
By adopting this Policy, the City Council restates the minimum requirements
embodied in Federal, State, and Local laws. In accordance with those applicable
laws, staff shall, at a minimum, provide notice as legally required. Certain public
notification requires notification of property owners and residents/occupants
within a certain radius of the property that is the subject of the
Council/Commission decision. Where said radius ends mid-block, the minimum
legal notification list shall be expanded to include property owners and
residents/occupants to the end of the block.
USE OF CITYWIDE NOTIFICATION
From time to time, City-wide notification may be appropriate or desirable.
Whenever possible and appropriate, City-wide notification shall be coordinated
with the quarterly publication of Culver City Living. Additionally, public notices
shall be routinely placed on the City's website. To conserve server storage
space, public notices shall be removed from the website after the meetings or
events that are the subject of the notices have occurred.Due to the cost involved, an individual, full City-wide notification shall only be
conducted with the approval of the City Manager or at the direction of the City
Council.
CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD
The City Council Speaker Card shall provide information to interested parties on
how to sign-up for either the E-Mail or Postal Mail Interest Lists. The City Council
Speaker Card may be amended from time to time to further the goals of this
Policy.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL E-MAIL AND POSTAL MAIL INTEREST
LISTS
Culver City has had a tradition of encouraging public participation in the
governmental process. As part of that tradition, the City has provided public
notification in excess of the levels required by law. The City has also adopted a
number of policies and procedures which make Culver City a leader in
sustainability and environmental awareness.
To provide for additional efficiencies, staff shall establish the following two
categories of interest lists: (1) An E-mail Interest List, and (2) a Postal Mail
Interest List.
E-Mail interest List
E-Mail provides an efficient, timely, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive
method of providing public notification. Through the use of e-mail, the City can
notify a large number of persons simultaneously and almost instantly. Duplicate
e-mails can be easily deleted, minimizing wasted resources.
Whenever practicable, the City shall encourage interested parties to sign-up for
e-mail notification through a self-service and self-selecting process.
Postal Mail Interest Lists
To accommodate those persons who may not have easy access to a computer
and/or the Internet, the City shall establish and maintain a postal mail interest list.
Various categories of interest may be created in order to accommodate various
topics. Such topics shall be established by staff based upon the number of
individuals requesting notification on a topic.
Signing Up for the E-Mail and Postal Mail Interest Lists
To encourage and facilitate the use of both Interest Lists, Staff shall provide a
number of ways in which interested persons can sign-up for both. These
methods may include (but not be limited to):
• Electronic sign-up via the City's website• Manual sign-up via the City Council Speaker Card
• Manual sign-up via written or telephonic request
It is the responsibility of residents to keep their address current with the city by
notifying the City if they move or change their e-mail address.
ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TO THE PUBLIC FOR DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS
In addition to the legally required notice contained in applicable Federal, State,
and local law, the City shall strive to provide increased outreach for persons in
the Culver City community on proposed developments. Following are examples
of additional outreach efforts currently used for this purpose:
• The First Mandatory Community Meeting is held at least one week prior
to the Preliminary Project Review conducted by staff
• The Second Mandatory Community Meeting is held at least one week
prior to application submittal
• The Third Mandatory Community Meeting is held at least 21 days from
the application being deemed complete
• Notice for the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is
provided at least 21 days prior to the Planning Commission public
hearing
• Planning Commission holds Public Hearing
• (If application is appealed to the City Council) Notice for the Public
Hearing before the City Council is provided at least 21 days prior to the
City Council public Hearing
• (If application is appealed to the City Council) City Council holds Public
Hearing.
Additional information on these outreach efforts are contained in Attachment 1 of
this Policy entitled "Community Outreach Guidelines."
ADDITIONAL NOTICE
The City Manager and the City's Department Heads may determine that notice
above the minimum requirements of this Policy is in the public interest. In that
case, additional notice may be provided with the approval of the Department
Head and/or the City Manager.
It should be noted that all notice provided in excess of the legally required notice
is done as a courtesy to the public, and the methods contained within this Policy
are guidelines. The City will make a reasonable effort to provide the additional
notice contained in this Policy.PLANNING DIVISION
(310) 253-5710
•
FAX (310) 253-5721
planning@culvercity.org
THOMAS GORHAM
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
Deputy Community Development
Director/ Planning Manager
Community Outreach Guidelines
During the Project Review Process, Applicants will be required to hold three (3) community meetings as outlined
herein separate and apart from any other outreach meetings the applicant may conduct and any required public
hearings (i.e., Planning Commission, City Council). Applicants shall work with their assigned Project Planner in the
Planning Division to develop a schedule, identify neighbors and community groups to outreach to, and to prepare the
required notification for the Community Meetings.
• APPLICABILITY. The following discretionary entitlement applications as outlined in Article 5 of the Culver City
Zoning Code shall be subject to Community Outreach as described herein:
o Site Plan Reviews (SPR)
o Administrative Site Plan Reviews (ASPR)
o Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
O Administrative Use Permits (AUP) for alcohol sales
O Comprehensive Plans (CP)
o Specific Plans (SP)
o Height Exceptions (HE)
O Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA)
o General Plan Amendments (CPA)
COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULE
t
...: :
it iti
Meeting -
Preliminary
Project
Review
(PPR)
4*
,
Meetmg #2
Application
Submittal
Project
Review
Committee
(PRC)
Application
Deemed
Complete
POMtOi
,
Meeting
Held a
minimum
one week
prior to PPR
review
Scheduled
with project
planner;
typically,
Thursdays at
8:30 AM
Held a
minimum
one week
prior to the
application
submittal
Submittal
scheduled
with project
planner
Scheduled
with project
planner,
typically
Thursdays
at 8:30 AM
+30 days
from
application
submittal or
resubmittal
Held within
21 days
from
application
deemed
complete.
• PURPOSE. Community Meeting #1: Meet with neighbors and/or community members at an early stage to
present conceptual plans and to provide information regarding the proposed project and to receive
feedback on project plans prior to submitting to the City for PPR. Community Meeting #2: Present further
refined plans to the community responding to comments from Community Meeting # 1 and the City's PPR
comments and receive additional comments prior to submitting a formal application. Community Meeting
#3: Present full application submittal plans following all revisions for final comment and feedback from the
community prior to the Public Hearing,
• HOSTING/FACILITATION. Community Meetings #1 and #2 shall be hosted and facilitated by the Applicant.
Planning staff will attend both meetings to observe. Community Meeting #3 will be hosted and facilitated
by Planning staff.• LOCATION. The Applicant will hold Community Meetings #1 and #2 at or near the subject property.
Alternative locations should provide ample parking for attendees and should be near the subject property.
Community Meeting #3 will be held at City Hall.
• NOTIFICATION. For each meeting, the Applicant shall be responsible for notification of neighbors (including
occupants and owners) within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, or to a radius as determined by
Planning staff. Additional notification of homeowner groups, the Chamber of Commerce and other local
groups, as identified by Planning staff may be required. The applicant shall provide Planning staff with an
Affidavit of Mailing and all notification cost shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Planning Staff will
provide the Applicant with a notification template that will include the following information:
o Notification shall include the date, time and location of the Community Meeting.
o Notification shall identify project location (with a map), the requested entitlements, a project
description, and contact information for the Applicant or his/her representatives.
• STRUCTURE. The applicant hosted and facilitated Community Meetings #1 and #2 shall follow the structure
and include the material as outlined below:
o A sign-in sheet which shall include name, address, phone number and email address of each
attendee shall be provided.
o Applicant shall give an overview of the project and present plans (i.e. floor plans, site plans,
elevations, renderings, etc.) and results of any preliminary environmental studies as applicable.
o Applicant should be able to answer questions about the project from attendees, including requested
entitlements and operation details of the proposed project.
o Applicant shall identify any project changes in response to community and/or staff concerns,
comments and/or questions.
o Applicant shall keep meeting minutes to include bullet points of all concerns, comments and/or
questions raised.
o Sign in sheet and bullet point minutes shall be provided to the Project Planner within 3 working days
following each meeting.
The City hosted and facilitated Community Meeting #3 shall follow the structure and include the materials
as outlined below:
o A sign-in sheet which shall include name, address, phone number and email address of each
attendee shall be provided.
o Applicant shall give an overview of the project and present plans (i.e. floor plans, site plans,
elevations, renderings, etc.) and results of any final environmental studies as applicable.
o Applicant shall identify any project changes in response to community and/or staff concerns,
comments and/or questions.
o City Staff and Applicant will answer questions about the project from attendees, including details on
requested entitlements, operation details of the proposed project, CEQA analysis and the hearing
schedule.
o Planning Staff shall keep meeting minutes to include bullet points of all concerns, comments and/or
questions raised.
o Sign in sheet and bullet point minutes shall be provided to the Applicant within 3 working days
following the meeting.
• EVALUATION/REPORT. Planning Staff shall be present at each community meeting and prepare an evaluation of
the applicant's response to community concerns, comments and/or questions from each community meeting
and provide said information in its written report to the Planning Corrunission and/or the City Council.
|